9 Apr
2013
9 Apr
'13
4:50 p.m.
On 04/08/2013 09:40 PM, MG wrote:
Really? IBM? Obscurity? Heh heh heh... I'll believe that when I see it.
IBM has been pretty good at updating things to stay in the game.
However, if you can back up your claim of IBM going obscure...
Because the people that care about this, and need to know, don't "need
no stinkin'" ads & youtube videos to know who to call.
On 9-apr-2013 2:35, Liam Proven wrote:
Like I said, it's a beautiful sounding system, I never doubted that.
My main gripe is the 'elitism' that IBM seems to instill and (like
also someone else admitted) seems to artificially keep alive.
It also --- well, to me anyway --- gives the impression that it's
more of a money making scheme (the 'exclusivity', so to speak)
than a sound future-proof treatment.
Well IBM _is_ a publicly traded company, and aside from making good
systems, they also have to make money for themselves & their
shareholders. While you may not like how they do it, they are making money.
Imagine a
whole server room, hell, a whole datacentre, with hundreds
of independent servers - some running Windows, some Linux, some
Solaris, some Netapp Filers, some dedicated SQL servers, all in a
single rack, managed as a single instance, with 100% compatibility and
all the components, from the processor chips to the disk drives to the
network cards to all the OSs, all coming from a single vendor, all
optimised for handling big server workloads with /better than/ 99.999%
availability.
I've never seen official performance statistics, just IBM's own
figures. So, I can't comment on how it truly behaves in this
regard.
That is why people still buy (or more to the
point, rent) mainframes.
There is a generation, I'm even willing to bet several generations,
that grew up with nothing other than Windows and Linux. Some young
enough have never even experienced nor seen/heard an IBM PC, let
alone the term "IBM PC".
Why is this important? Because IBM itself, the company, is also
falling further into obscurity like this, along with "z". I am not
talking about a system that is 5? or 10? more scalable.
I'm talking about something 50? or 100? more scalable. Not
supporting hundreds of users per box, but millions of users per
box.
Why isn't IBM more eager to speak of this and show the world what
"z" is truly capable of? Why isn't YouTube loaded with videos
showing these kind of things of, to name something? I really don't get it, such a capable platform
(I'm told), but
absolutely no desire to expand and increase its user/install
base?
Oh, I'm sure they would love to expand their mainframe business. But
the people that need that get treated differently. IBM would have a
sales guy go to the potential client.
--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- AIM - woyciesjes
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/
Registered Linux user number 464583
"Computers have lots of memory but no imagination."
"The problem with troubleshooting is that trouble shoots back."
- from some guy on the internet.